From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 15 05:25:07 2019 Received: (at 33899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Jul 2019 09:25:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46393 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hmxEJ-0006GU-6I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:25:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38340) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hmxEI-0006Fo-26 for 33899@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:25:06 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43843) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hmxEB-0008OF-2c; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:24:59 -0400 Received: from [2001:660:6102:320:e120:2c8f:8909:cdfe] (port=38884 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hmxEA-0000G8-JN; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 05:24:58 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Hector Sanjuan Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Distributing substitutes over IPFS References: <20181228231205.8068-1-ludo@gnu.org> <87r2dfv0nj.fsf@gnu.org> <8736pqthqm.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhlxe8t9.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87ftnbf1rt.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 27 Messidor an 227 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:24:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Hector Sanjuan's message of "Sun, 14 Jul 2019 22:31:43 +0000") Message-ID: <87ef2rr6om.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 33899 Cc: Antoine Eiche , "go-ipfs-wg@ipfs.io" , Pierre Neidhardt , "33899@debbugs.gnu.org" <33899@debbugs.gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello H=C3=A9ctor! :-) Hector Sanjuan skribis: > On Friday, July 12, 2019 10:15 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wr= ote: [...] >> > - Pinning: Pinning all files separately incurs an overhead. It's >> > enough to just pin the IPLD object since it propagates recursively. >> > When adding a tree, then it's no problem since pinning is only don= e once. >> > >> >> Where=E2=80=99s the overhead exactly? > > There are reasons why we are proposing to create a single DAG with an > IPLD object at the root. Pinning has a big overhead because it > involves locking, reading, parsing, and writing an internal pin-DAG. This > is specially relevant when the pinset is very large. > > Doing multiple GET requests also has overhead, like being unable to use > a single bitswap session (which, when downloading something new means a > big overhead since every request will have to find providers). > > And it's not just the web view, it's the ability to walk/traverse all > the object related to a given root natively, which allows also to compare > multiple trees and to be more efficient for some things ("pin update" > for example). Your original idea is to create a manifest with > references to different parts. I'm just asking you to > create that manifest in a format where those references are understood > not only by you, the file creator, but by IPFS and any tool that can > read IPLD, by making this a IPLD object (which is just a json). OK, I see. Put this way, it seems like creating a DAG with an IPLD object as its root is pretty compelling. Thanks for clarifying! Ludo=E2=80=99.